I think we need to talk about the hatred of women.

[LiberalLoner]

It has escalated in our society to the point where it is becoming truly toxic, and not just among the right-wingers, either.

Take a look at the posts on this board today. Let's take a look at ourselves, shall we?

Is it okay to express hatred towards women here? And call it a joke?

23 votes, 6 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	You can write anything you want, as long as you call it satire!
	0 (0%)
	Women have been making gains at the expense of men and it's time to put them back in their place!
	0 (0%)
	Yeah, it's fine to post misogynistic crap. What are you gonna do about it? Cry?
	0 (0%)
	I've seen the misogyny on the rise in our country and even on these boards and I'm sick of it.
	23 (100%)
	6 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Blue_In_AK]

1. To be truthful,

in the past I've considered that some women here might be a bit hypersensitive (and I'm speaking as a woman myself), but this latest little dueling threads issue has compelled me to have second thoughts.

[EFerrari]

7. Some women are hypersensitive

but that's not an uncommon response for survivors of trauma.

The stuff I've read in Meta about feminism and feminists is among the ugliest, most ignorant I've ever read anywhere.

[Taverner]

11. I missed something here

What happened?

[EFerrari]

13. It's old now and trust me, you didn't miss anything

that deserved your attention.

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. I completely disagree with Eferrari. It is a real issue and pretending that it's just

blown all out of proportion is how this shit grows into the kind of thing that splits families, communities, and even cultures.

This started it; http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002810596

[EFerrari]

41. Except you are disagreeing with something I didn't say. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. So, I misinterpreted "you didn't miss anything that deserved your attention."? n/t

[EFerrari]

51. I think so. I was referring to the mind-numbingly stupid bullying,

not minimizing the issue itself.

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. OK, now I'm really confused. Bullying of unkachunk? n/t

[EFerrari]

56. This must be my inarticulate Friday.

lol

A couple of weeks back, there was a run of feminist bashing in Meta. It was revolting. When Taverner asked, my thinking was that those ugly threads wouldn't be very illuminating for him.

[Egalitarian Thug]

57. NP at all. I don't spend nearly enough time reading here to know most of what's going on.

I just happened to stumble across that first poll question and was shocked, then what happened after was even worse and I thought I'd slipped through some alternate reality gateway and didn't get the one that rains doughnuts.

[EFerrari]

60. LOL.

This is the post I should have written in response to Blue:

If you think some women are hypersensitive to these issues, you are right. Some women are. In any group of people that is pushed around ------> abused and traumatized, a number of them will develop sensitivities and triggers.

That doesn't invalidate their experience.

Having said that, I have seen really ugly bullying of women, and of feminists in particular, in Meta so, if you are seeing big reactions, there is a real situation on this board that is being reacted to in my opinion.

[Egalitarian Thug]

64. Oh no doubt. My GF has been here since 2004 I think. She turned me on to it then and I

lurked around for a bit, but found the discourse on Kos to be more engaging. More discussion of topics and ideas (Pooty threads aside, God how I hate those fucking cats) and far fewer roaming factions of bullies, so I just stayed there. She has had more than a couple meltdowns over the amount and intensity of anti-woman crap that is tolerated here over the years.

I'm told that most of the best feminist writers were either banned or simply don't post here anymore, but this was my first personal experience.

[Blue_In_AK]

65. It's me you're disagreeing with,

and I thought I was perfectly clear how I came to my opinion, and also that I understand other people's sensibilities on this issue. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion.

I am in total agreement that a certain amount of misogyny is present on this board, and the offending post thankfully has now been locked. I am one who alerted on it, among many of us apparently.


ed. On edit, I see it IS EFerrari with whom you're trying to disagree, but I believe you're misinterpreting her reply.

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. Oh yeah, we had a crossed connection between my eyes and her fingers. complicated by my DUbie

status and resultant ignorance of a much longer standing issue.

Or maybe it's just my time of the month.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. And, of course, you're absolutely correct.

I'm a survivor of trauma myself (17 years of an abusive marriage). but my way of coping was to put up a wall against feeling offended, to tell myself that it was HIS problem, not mine (which I still believe is true). But I know that everyone deals with things differently and I've probably sacrificed a bit of my humanity by hardening my heart.

I don't frequent Meta much, but I take your word as regard to the ugliness and ignorance. There seems to be plenty of that to go around all over this board.

[EFerrari]

18. This will likely get locked but, I'm glad you weighed in.

Thank you.

[DURHAM D]

43. I am not a survivor of trauma.

I am not hypersensitive.

Your post, however, is insensitive and just wrong.

[EFerrari]

53. No, it isn't. It's honest and as a survivor myself, I approve that message. n/t

[Recursion]

46. EFerrari, I like you, but it's not our job to tell others they are too sensitive

They are who they are, and if you want to communicate with someone the onus is on you to find the right way to do that.

[EFerrari]

52. Right, and I'm not advocating for telling anyone they are too sensitive. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

59. I don't think that E thinks that there is anything wrong with being hyersensitve

around specific issues.

For instance, I, as a pedestrian, got hit by a car so I am hypersensitive when crossing the street and I do tend to impose my carefulness with those I am with.

[EFerrari]

61. Right. I was describing, not proscribing.

I'm hypersensitive to witnessing bullying. For some reason, it makes me hypervigilant and if I forget to be careful, lol, I spread the anxiety to those around me.

[twitter1]

2. It has claimed many lives this hatred.

As a matter of fact, Virginia Wolf killed herself:

http://mdatoz.com/wolf

[EFerrari]

14. Please don't cheapen this discussion

with massive, over-wrought claims.

[obamanut2012]

28. That link just led to an excerpt of "Shakespeare's Sister" by Woolf

Which shows what the world would have lost if Shakespeare had been born female and not male.

Also, I think saying that Woolf drowned herself because of a hatred is a compelling argument.

She and her sister Vanessa suffered long-term sexual abuse at the hands of their stepbrothers, half-brothers George and Gerald Duckworth, which is usually considered the basis of her life-long depression and several breakdowns. She was also at least bisexual, and possible gay, and homophobia is, at its core, a hatred or contempt of women and behaviors considered feminine (imo).

So, an argument could certainly be made for this.

[EFerrari]

30. Claiming that Woolf took her own life because of hatred

is a massive reduction. There may be an argument to be made but, do you really think it can be made on a thread at DU?

[obamanut2012]

31. Maybe not within this thread, but why not on a thread?

Hell, I'll even start one.

I wasn't snarking at you, I just didn't think the poster made an illegitimate point. Woolf's life was very complicated, but her sexual abuse certainly paid a lifelong role in her mental, emotional, and sexual health.

[EFerrari]

40. Exactly my point. Start a thread because the topic will need at least one. n/t

[StarryNight]

111. female children are aborted or left to die by the millions *because they are female.* if that's not

insane, misogynistic hatred, i don't know what is.

[sufrommich]

3. What is really scary is the right wing

message that "women have gone too far". What does that even mean? Makes me shudder.

[WingDinger]

4. Although unsavory, there is real pain behind the misogyny.

Men are feeling hopeless. Although that does nothing for you or any woman, at least you understand where they are mistakenly coming from.

AS soon as the dissillusioned die out, the new crop of boys, having been given different expectations, will bear up fine and not lash out. We rarely accept the future we didnt prepare for with grace. At least not Americans, the greatest nation that ever graced the planet. Where ANYONE that works hard can become if not rich, then comfortable.

[LiberalLoner]

10. You have a very good point, and I think what you are saying is very true.

Thank you for this.

[EFerrari]

15. Being in pain is not a free pass to inflict pain on others. n/t

[WingDinger]

16. Certainly. And reeducation, to whatever extent possible, is called for.

Its just that I feel that most of that effort should go into boys growing up. Realistic priorities and all.

[redqueen]

62. Lord...

if I used the word 'reeducation' the way you just did I'd be pilloried for it.

[LiberalLoner]

77. LOL!

[WingDinger]

79. Their original EDUMACATION was by pimple faced Freddy down the block.

We learn many things about how GIRLS ARE growing up. You cant imagine.

[redqueen]

84. Interesting. nt

[LiberalLoner]

22. There is a book I read a few years ago that talks about this, was a good book..

Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man [Paperback]
Susan Faludi

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. "the new crop of boys, having been given different expectations, will bear up fine and not lash out"

No, they'll still lash out, perhaps in different ways.

They're far less likely to to have a decent education than their sisters, and even less than their fathers.

Suicide among young men is at epidemic proportions. They will earn 28% less than their grandfathers. Their labor force particpation rate has collapsed.

The July 2011 labor force participation rate for 16- to 24-year-old men, at 61.4 percent, fell by 1.3 percentage points from a year earlier. The rate for women, at 57.6 percent,
edged down over the year. For several decades prior to 1989, the July labor force participation rate for young men showed no clear trend, ranging from 81 to 86 percent. Since July 1989, however, their participation rate for the month declined, falling by about 21 percentage points.

Can't go to college and can't get a job. No. The boys are not alright, yet among my fellow progressives, I appear to be the only one who's not okay with that.

[LiberalLoner]

78. I'm horrified by it too. I'm seeing the effects of this on the men I care about in my family and

beyond, especially the young men.

All I keep thinking is, capitalism is not working. We have suicidal youth (both young men and women) who are really hurting, who don't see a future, don't HAVE a future, who are lonely and disconnected with no one to nurture them and show them how to fit into society and have relationships...

We are just such a sick society right now that I despair it can even be fixed. I look with longing at other cultures around the world, indigenous cultures (although some of them are misogynistic which sucks) - I feel like we all need to be a whole lot more connected to one another, a whole lot more real, a whole lot more caring and nice, and a whole lot less judged on outward appearances and what possessions we have.

I don't know how to fix any of this. I feel so much despair. I feel hopeless sometimes. I know that men, especially the younger men, are suffering too. And sometimes women are really mean to men, too. I know that. I wish our society would be a much less cruel and mean society in general. We aren't going to survive as a culture unless we learn to be nicer to one another. I'm not saying we won't have disagreements and fights, but there is this snarkiness and cruelty and delight in selfishness that the right-wing is all about and it seems to be infecting our whole society like a horrible cancer and we need to break free of it somehow.

[WingDinger]

83. I'm thinking more of what they can expect out of marriage/coupling, men and women stuff.

men will never accept not being able to raise a family not in destitution.

[LiberalLoner]

86. Some of what is happening is, it's getting so much harder for both men and women

in so many ways. It now takes two people working at least two full time jobs (or more) to "make it" and then, who cleans the house, who cooks the food, who cares for children, who has time to care for each other?

Relationships are built on people caring for one another and demonstrating that care in many ways. It's like capitalism sucks us all dry by working us half to death and then we don't hardly have any energy or anythign left to give to others, and without that energy, relationships can't work.

But we NEED relationships, it's vital to our mental health, so.....

This capitalism stuff is not working. I don't know what an alternative would be but it's really not working right anymore for most of us.

[ManyShadesOf]

96. The answers

to your questinos in this post and the one above are in individual actions and choices and how people CONSUME in this culture. As you said we NEED relationships. Our other priorities create the world we live in.

[LiberalLoner]

97. We need to have the courage to walk away from the dysfunction, don't we?

I am loving what I am seeing these days, with people living in ultra-small homes, really rebelling against being tied down to a huge mortgage and "stuff." It seems to me a step in the right direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems to me.

[WingDinger]

98. As CSN said, before they mowed down the hippies,We've got to get back to the garden, life is for

learning. We had the answers. They snuffed them.

[ManyShadesOf]

100. The ideas are popular now

once they became trendy and profitable (again). Some folks kept it lit.

[ManyShadesOf]

99. Opportunities every day

Small and large

[Tumbulu]

101. I don't know how old you are, but I am in my mid 50's

My mother during the depression was awarded a 4 yr scholarship to attend a University. She could not accept it because in her large immigrant family the girls were expected to take the highest paying job they could get out of high school and then that money was used to send the boys to college. All her brothers graduated for college and it was a good strategy for the large family. My mother was brilliant and was a fabulous mother and then when we were grown ran my dad's business and was tremendous there. She was never bitter, it was just the way things were then.

In my generation, I worked my way through college, although my brother had his way paid.

The implication of all this is that men used to be sort of coddled by the women. The women who had the kind of intelligence that one utilizes in a University were really not allowed to go. The only reason I was able to work my way through is because I am a work-a-holic.

Also, there is still a great deal of discrimination within workforces and women without degrees do not get the job offers that men without degrees get.

I have a cousin (my age) who made way more money than I ever did as an electrician. He has already retired. He thought that I was crazy using so many good years of my life to go to college, then graduate school and then the Peace Corps no less- no money!!! There is no way with my body type- wimpy- that I would be able to do the work that he did. I work in agriculture and with the limited physical strength that I have to be effective I have to do things where strength is not required. Persistence and patience and monotony, yes. But I cannot attach implements to my tractor myself, etc.

And so I think that what is going on is that 60 years ago men were helped by unpaid and underpaid women all the time - but now that is over. I do not personally feel obligated to give my career up for a man, although I am of the cusp of the generation that still did that.

We were supposed to "catch a good man"..... Sneakily use our "attractive looks" to hoodwink some poor guy into marriage and then saddle him with endless miserable expectations and a family to support. I do not think that that model was fair either, and the girls that I grew up with were repulsed by this strategy that our aunties advocated.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. I'm 50.

Dad's IQ was about 130, and had roughly a 6th grade education. Colleges don't accept guys with that kind of resume, but the army does. My dad survived a shot in the head in world war 2 and suffered seizures because of it, but that didn't mitigate the need for him to work construction the rest of his life to support his family.

Given the choice between being rejected from a university or being rejected from a university and drafted, I'd pick the former.

But this is irrelevant. No amount of injustice heaped on anyone today will rectify injustice of the past.

History in this context, does not matter at all.

[Tumbulu]

106. well I think that it creates the context of how we see the world

The personal stories of our families create the foundation of our imagination, or ideas of what is or is not possible and how we may look at it all.

I get the idea from your posts that you think that women are given an easier path than men.

I think that women and men have typically been offered very different paths and that in our current society and time the paths are more parallel. But we are not used to it, perhaps.

I think that in the past it was considered the female burden to go through the enormous pain and life threatening risk of bearing children- used to be a whole lot so them and in some places still is- and the men to go to the wars, always some new war.

I hope that these days with an over all reduced tolerance for both wars and large families that as individuals our personal lives can have less suffering and more joy. And that we can all spend more time in ways that are productive and creative.

[StarryNight]

112. all that, and yet they still think they're better than women? oh well. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. Intriguing, if true. Unfortunately it's 180° false.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/sep/01/girls-boys-schools-gender-gap

They learn the opposite by age 4.

[Scootaloo]

5. Not certain what posts you mean on DU, but definitely seen it in society

And since DU is a segment of that society, can't call myself surprised if it's washing up here.

[DLevine]

6. What's been a real eye-opener for me is the blatant misogyny tolerated on DU. n/t

[WingDinger]

42. I have not seen mean spirited misogyny. Just ignorance.

Any jury I have been on, hid that crap pronto. There are some, sometimes me included, that bemoan knee jerk sensitivity, not necessarily misogyny. Might that be the thing you are seeing?

[DURHAM D]

44. Agree.

DU does not have a zero tolerance policy for sexist or misogynist posts/posters.

[StarryNight]

113. yep; it's not just for the reactionary rw-ers. it's "cool" and "edgy" for the lw-ers,

men and women alike.

[Mosby]

8. this should be in meta

The problem here is bad juries.

[laconicsax]

108. Juries are composed of randomly chosen members of DU.

When you randomly choose people from a large pool, you're going to see individual biases. When randomly chosen people routinely exhibit the same biases, you have a problem that extends beyond a few bad apples.

[Taverner]

9. I think we also need a refresher on what exactly is misogyny

The "C" word and the "B" word are examples of misogyny, even if not intended.

The word "Slut" is an example of a word being taken back by women - which is good. But it is all in the context.

[StarryNight]

114. the very fact that DUers need to be told why the B-word and the C-word are

insulting and sexist, is a pretty good indication of the pathetic status of women here. and it only gets worse from here.

[redqueen]

119. Very well said. nt

[Taverner]

120. Or...you can see it as a learning opportunity

Which is how I would see it

[cynatnite]

12. I get sick of hearing that anyone who is offended is being hypersensitive...

That happens quite a bit here.

It seems like asking for the smallest amount of respect gets you a kick in the teeth.

[LiberalLoner]

19. It does, doesn't it?

[EFerrari]

20. Imho, when women raise concerns about misogyny

and those concerns are ridiculed or minimized, those posts should be alerted in the clearest possible terms as bullying, because that is what it is.

[HockeyMom]

21. As an old woman,

no, in so many ways it is far worse. I think the reasons is because women are now in positions of power, don't have to marry to support themselves, etc., and many men are threatened by this. It makes them feel like emasculated, so to compensate, they do everything they can to "put women" in her place, which they think is barefoot, pregnant, at home, and SILENT.

[LiberalLoner]

24. Thank you for weighing in. I'm turning 51 this summer and have never seen it this bad, this much

hatred. Yeah there was some unwanted flirting with me when I was younger, but there wasn't so much bare hatred out there as there is now. And I do agree with you that it's a backlash of some sort. And I'm really worried about where it's going and where it will end up...more worried for the young women than myself, since I will likely be dead in another couple of decades.

[StarryNight]

115. i think overt nastiness of most kinds is more acceptable now; "keepin it real" you know. nt

[lapislzi]

23. As with any discussion of this nature, it is necessary to define our terms.

What is "hatred of women?"

I'm not being facetious or confrontational. I realize everyone's threshold is different. And, I try to respect everyone's threshold's for offense. Some are more easily offended than others.

Note, that does NOT mean that person has no sense of humor or is hypersensitive, or however you want to defend your comment. It's a perception issue. If offense is perceived, it's perceived. Don't pretend it isn't.

You can SAY you meant no harm, and maybe you didn't. I always try to learn from exchanges like that: how can I phrase something differently so that I don't give offense? I admit that I find humor in some things others would find offensive, but I respect that we might have a difference of opinion. And I try to keep that in mind, especially on these boards and in these types of discussions.

There's a reason that there are "trigger warnings" on certain sites and posts. Some of us have been through stuff we don't want to be reminded of, and it's nobody's business to judge anyone on it.

So, I want to know from the OP: what is hatred of women? I see a lot of stereotyping, defensive posturing, and perpetuation of gender tropes on this and other boards. But, tell me what you consider "hateful" and what you do not.

Then I would like to hear from other posters.

Respectfully,
Lazzz

[EFerrari]

25. When you talk to or about women as if

they are not fully human agents, that's hatred.

It's not very difficult to understand.

[LiberalLoner]

27. Yes, thank you for stating that so eloquently! I was stumbling with trying to explain it.

[EFerrari]

29. You're fine.

[lapislzi]

33. OK! No need for hostility.

I just wanted to define the terms. And I was trying to be respectful. I thought I was on your side here.

I call it misogyny, because I prefer to be precise.

[LiberalLoner]

35. I felt your question was respectful, felt no hostility towards you at all! I hope you didn't

feel that I was being hostile, I appreciated your question!

[EFerrari]

39. There is no hostility in my post.

And using a word of Greek derivation is not more precise than using its exact English equivalent. Which is nice for those of us who don't speak Greek.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. The best example I see here of people treating women as if they lack agency...

... is the views expressed by the most vocal opponents of sex work.

[EFerrari]

73. Oh, gosh, I can think of examples that are more straight forward than that.

Telling women they can't think, that they distort language, invalidating their experience, that they can't reason.

I myself would prefer that sex work be legalized, regulated and unionized, but that's complicated when so many people, men and women, can be and are coerced into the trade. I used to work in downtown San Francisco and every night on my way out of the Tenderloin, I'd see these skinny young men come out and wait to be picked up. None of them looked particularly happy about the start of their shift. And a lot of them couldn't have even been of age.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. I think you're confusing agency with something else.

Telling women they can't think, that they distort language, invalidating their experience, that they can't reason.

It's possible to be a woman and be wrong. If pointing this out is misogynist then we have an irreconcilable problem; facts are rendered irrelevant and every statement must be accepted at face value.

Everyone has agency, they make their own choices. If those choices have negative ramifications, it's not always the fault of the system.

[EFerrari]

105. I'm not confused. Telling a woman she *is* wrong, can't think, or that her experience is worthless

is a denial of agency and different than refuting an argument or than presenting countervailing facts.

[LiberalLoner]

26. It's a good question.

To answer that, I guess I would say, it's hard to define but I know when I see it.

To me, hatred of women as an example would be telling women they don't act feminine enough (I'm a man and I get to tell you how to act) and telling women they have no right to be offended (I decide as a man what you are allowed to feel and not feel, what you can express and how.)

Two examples, there are many more, but those are two that have occupied my mind today.

[lapislzi]

36. Thank you. That was actually helpful.

I agree.

I would like to participate intelligently in the discussion, and it helps to know exactly what people mean by their terms.

[Skittles]

32. the denial on this board is stunning

seriously ignorant DUers

[LiberalLoner]

34. I don't understand. Could you clarify please? Thank you.

[lapislzi]

37. In other threads...

I hate the "you're too sensitive" crowd. I'm as sensitive as I am. Period. I don't have to justify that to anyone.

"You're too sensitive" and "you can't take a joke" are just coded forms of denial. IMO.

[Recursion]

47. I hate this notion that we get to dictate how others respond to our messages

Yeah, wouldn't communication be absurdly easy if we could just say "you have to have my emotional reactions to things"?

In most ways I'm one of the most centrist people on this board, but how far a lot of this board is to the right on feminism frankly frightens me. It is NEVER my place to tell someone he or she is "too sensitive". If I want to communicate a message, by God I need to figure out the way to communicate it to people.

[Skittles]

104. LOLOL

"emotional reaction to things"

[lapislzi]

118. My point exactly.

I know in the past I have inadvertently given offense when trying to be funny. I have been called on it, and I examine my words and my behavior.

Then I try to figure out a way not give offense in the future. I thought that's what learning is all about.

And, just because I might laugh at a sexist joke, doesn't mean I don't understand how others might find it offensive. I get that.

[Skittles]

103. exhibit number one

[Recursion]

45. Hell yes. Compared to the early 90s we're back in the 1800s

In high school in 1992 it was somewhat left-identifying but relatively uncontroversial for me as a male to say "I am a feminist". It was assumed I was also a Democrat and a n*****r-lover (this being Mississippi), but these were all within the bounds of things straight white men were, so it was more or less chacun a son gout.

I get more flak for calling myself a feminist in the Washington DC metro area today than I did in a small town in Mississippi 20 years ago. Think about that.

[Luminous Animal]

63. Good post.

[Honeycombe8]

48. K&R. nt

[LiberalLoner]

49. I'm very relieved and proud of DU for doing the right thing today and

it feels a little safer here, to me. I just wanted one place in the world I could belong to without having to endure this on-going war on my gender.

I am glad the right thing was done today. Thank you.

[Odin2005]

54. I was completely blind to it until my friend was raped.

I was one of the posters that mocked "Femi-Nazis" before then.

Now I get it.

[BlueIris]

58. Some of us have been talking about it for a long time.

Since 2005. Because we had no choice. I still see no effective or sincere attempts to remove misogyny and sexism from this website.

[Major Hogwash]

66. I think it is time for DU to have some women admins join the boys in the band.

I think those 3 guys need some help dealing with this horrible, terrible situation.

I also think they need to have the women on this forum vote for 3 women to be admins at the DU.

Facebook has received a tremendous amount of criticism as of late for not having any women or minorities on their Board of Directors, and I think that DU is ready for some women in their leadership ranks as well.

I can only think of 30 or 40 women, at least, that post regularly at the DU that are qualified for the job, but since I don't know if any one of them would want the position, I would leave the nominating process up to them.

[MADem]

68. Facebook's Chief Operating Officer is a woman.

She gives a lousy commencement speech, though that might not be terribly salient. She worked at Google for a bit before she went to FB.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Is that a serious suggestion?

I don't see how having a female admin would make any difference. It's not as if most DUers model themselves on the posts the admins make. And it's not as if admin ignores misogyny on DU when it turns up - they banned unkachuck less than 24 hours after he posted that poll, for instance.

[Major Hogwash]

75. "V" is for Vagina.

Wow, you don't see how it would make any difference??

I suppose you can't read the Men's Group either, I suppose.
Where someone said that objectification is just a "made up" term.
Objectification of women, treating women like sex objects, is just a "made up" term.
You must have never taken any sexual harassment courses at work in the last 20 years.

I've taken 4 different sexual harassment courses since Clarence Thomas' hearings were held to allow him to sit on the Supreme Court.
They even teach sexual harassment courses at Walmart.

"Sandra Fluke is a whore."
That wasn't a case of objectification?
I submit that it was.

To answer your question, yes, I am serious.
My idea didn't just arise from what unkachuck said here.
I have talked to some other women at DU about the idea before.

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. You appear to want it so that more people are banned

because I can't see what else the effect of giving some members admin powers would be (there would be massive legal and privacy implications, of course - the admins are owners and/or employees of the LLC that runs DU, and are thus controlled by the law in what they can do with our credit card details, email addresses, IP numbers, PMs that we send to other DUers, and so on; I presume it's not for those powers that you want some members to become admins, so it must be to have them ban some Duers you don't like).

A lot of your latest post is irrelevant - "Sandra Fluke is a whore" was said by Rush Limbaugh, and I didn't see a single person supporting it in any way on DU (that wasn't a brand-new, quickly banned troll, anyway). DU was massively critical of it - it dominated the site for days, and is still frequently referred to as part of the problem of the American right wing attitude to women. But it in no way represents what DUers think.

If a DUer said objectification is a made-up term, that does not show they hate women. Are you saying your sexual harassment courses told you that it did? It shows they disagree with the terminology used by feminists.

[Major Hogwash]

91. DU is a business.

And like every other business on the planet, it has a business model.
The DU business model needs to be updated and changed to reflect the 21st Century.

There's really nothing complicated about it.

[seabeyond]

95. "Sandra Fluke is a whore" ... I didn't see a single person supporting it in any way on DU

and then turned around and defended flynt sticking a dick in a repug womans mouth to shut her up. call other repug women b and worse.

and turned on duers who spoke out calling us b while giggling and putting it in duzy.

yes. duers stood up and called out limbaugh. and in all the hypopcrisy did the same with women they did not like, defend and justify, validate, insult anyone that called them out with ridicule, namecalling and shaming.

that would be sexist behavior.

we do not get to say we are progressive if it is only protecting those we "like" and doing the exact same to those we do not like.

[ManyShadesOf]

109. It shows

"If a DUer said objectification is a made-up term, that does not show they hate women. Are you saying your sexual harassment courses told you that it did? It shows they disagree with the terminology used by feminists."

It shows that they're out of touch with reality.

[4th law of robotics]

80. You seem to be equating "disagreeing with your premise"

With "hating women".

Those aren't the same thing.

This is like the pay equality thread where people were deemed sexist if they pointed out flaws in studies that were manipulated to show women got "74 cents on the dollar for *the same job*". Like by lumping all full time workers (35 hours per week and up) together and ignoring how many hours they actually worked.

[redqueen]

82. No, I'm pretty sure people were called sexist for pretending that *any* unaccountable difference,

no matter *what* percent, was somehow no big deal.

Arguing about math and methodology comes off as if you're trying to 'prove' that it's really not all that bad. If your alternate results don't end up showing a ZERO percent difference, then what's the point?

Every study shows a measurable difference that can't be accounted for any other way.

[4th law of robotics]

85. See this is my point exactly:

Arguing about math and methodology comes off as if you're trying to 'prove' that it's really not all that bad. If your alternate results don't end up showing a ZERO percent difference, then what's the point?

Pointing out that the studies are flawed is de facto proof that you are a sexist.

Additionally there is a big difference between a 25% gap and a 5% gap.

And especially if that 5% can be accounted for by choices that differ between genders but cannot readily be quantified in to a model (bosses frequently report women are less aggressive in demanding raises than men. How do you quantify that? Is it a linear variable, or a fixed effect, or a random effect?).

But pointing all that out is inherently sexist.

The only way not to be sexist is to simply accept your premise without question.

Which is exactly what I said.

[redqueen]

87. That 5% (or 23% or ?) which CANNOT be accounted for by choices, or anything else, is evidence...

You know how we peg conservatives by their 'arguments' about global warming?

Same shit, different subject.

[4th law of robotics]

88. You're really not getting this

And I'm not sure I can explain it to you in a way that you will understand because you have a very closed mind on this issue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. Like the arguments against global warming? Yes, but not like you mean.

It is the deniers who express annoyance over the profusion of facts. That's why Gore called his book "an inconvenient truth".

Why 23%?

The total income made by women (let's subtract Oprah's $280 million because it doesn't fit the narrative) is about half of what men make.
But wait, most people are women, but women are a minority of the workforce so that drives the average down. Okay we'll correct for that.
And one third of working women choose to work part time. Okay, we'll correct for that too.
So comparing "full time" average earnings of men to "full time" average earnings for women yields a 23% gap.

Now, in order to not be considered a misogynist, one must stop there.

One cannot mention or correct for the facts that women full time workers work fewer overtime hours, choose lower paying occupations and due to years out of the workforce, have less experience than a male of the same age. These are all the easily quantifiable factors, which if one is willing to be considered a misogynist, brings the gap to 5%.

The definitions being used in this thread for the terms "sexist" and "misogynist" render the terms at worst benign and meaningless. At best, your definition of sexist is necessary to exercise simple intellectual honesty.

[seabeyond]

89. +1. damn. sometimes you impress the hell out of me.

the whole women within the man group is interesting, but after listening for years, i believe there are womens voices. i guess it depends if you have a women that plays in the oppression or not. it is not an easy answer per se. i could suggest a man that has taken harassment classes probably would be better at giving advice than some women.

So it seems that women, just as other oppressed groups, often perpetuate the same prejudicial thoughts or behavior that they’ve experienced in a way to separate themselves from the oppressed group and be accepted as part of the positive majority. Competition is formed in order to be ingratiated to those in positions of power or those seen as possessing positive characteristics.

[steve2470]

70. .....

[LiberalLoner]

81. I think there is a level of meanness and cruelty and nastiness that started in the right-wing maybe

and has infected our whole culture, and both men and women are cruel sometimes. I wish it would ALL stop, all the meanness. There will always be conflict, okay, and sometimes we have to fight for what we believe in, okay, but the snarkiness and the meanness just because "it's cool to be mean" and the lack of empathy and caring for others....it has to stop. It has to, or we will not survive as a society. Or a world.

The only way a community works, the only way a family works, the only way a couple works, the only way a nation works, is to have people who give a shit about the others in the relationship. Who don't take pleasure in hurting others. Who give at least a little bit of thought to what effect their actions have on others.

Right now it feels like the powers that be, the billionaires I guess, want our society to fail. Want us to be completely isolated and not caring about each other. Want us at each others throats. And sometimes I think it's working, sometimes I think we are doomed.

[TBF]

90. Really good post here -

yup, all we have to do is think about who benefits from the wedge-driving. I don't think the billionaires give a flying f**k about any of us or society at large ... they don't think about us at all with the exception of marketing campaigns to keep us at each other's throat and paying off politicians for deep-6ing taxes and regulations.

I wish I had words of optimism, as I generally try to stay optimistic in my personal life day to day, but I just don't see this ending well.

[seabeyond]

92. thank you for this post. i think it is a decade and half of manifesting a disrespect for women

that has been allowed to ripple out and feed on itself to such a point that it is touching all of society. we see it thru out. it is not small, minimal, or any particular group. it is like i have never seen in my lifetime. though women have taken huge steps in freedom, independents and the ability to take care of ourselves, there is a concerted effort to reign that in. it is being done in a number of ways. it is all about disrespect. once disrespect is well and truly implanted in us as a culture, all kinds of ugly is manifested toward women from different sectors.

and it is about control and dominance.

dehumanize women. thru media, music, internet, porn (internet and porn separate issues of dehumanizing) we have been able to dehumanize our females. it is part of our culture and everywhere we look. it is being taught to our boys. it is being taught to our girls. if we lack respect for a gender, it allows the rw to dehumanize us further with our body.

this is basic human interaction. action/reaction. it hurts all of us. both genders. not gender specific. our men are the problem. our women are the problem. we both create this and we are both taught as girls and boys.

yes, there is a war on females. i say females cause it is on both our girls and our women. it all feeds off each other.

and yes, it is on du.

i see the youngest of our generation seeing the older "kids", twenty something, lol, having walked into this boiling vat of experiment in such a mess and rejecting it. maybe we have to reach the very bottom first. see our young women die from laws implemented. see so many of the strong foundations that allow us to see the whole instead of individual to be destroyed. maybe our youngest of generations will say, enough as they are raised in a mess.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/124095350

If you're sick of seeing feminists discussing misogyny on DU, then quit acting in a misogynous way.

103 recommends. it is not just a few that see an issue.

[demmiblue]

107. .

[StarryNight]

110. it's definitely not confined to RW-ers, but it's nothing new. many LW men/women

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 01:35 AM - Edit history (1)

seem to think that if someone is a democrat, nothing they say or do can possibly be sexist, or it shouldn't be held against them. unfortunately, many women seem to decide to "go along to get along" in a man's world.

[pinboy3niner]

116. At lEAST SomeONE is STaNdING UP for Men's RIGHTS!1!!

(Posted in the style of the late--and unlamented--supraTruth.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002811897

[DURHAM D]

121. Bumping up

[MADem]

122. I think it hasn't escalated, but that's just me. Maybe it's because I was alive back in the

Mad Men days, when ass-patting and "tootsie/sweetie/broad" were said without apology, "Women can only be secretaries, teachers, switchboard operators or nurses" was universally accepted, and "Once you get married, get into the kitchen and out of the workforce," was the EXPECTATION and anyone violating that expectation had best have been suddenly widowed or had her husband crippled in some cruel and unanticipated way.

That's not to say everything is rosy--we have a long way to go as a nation with a LOT of prejudices.

[seabeyond]

123. no, i am sure you do not see it. i have yet to see you call one thing out as sexist and work at

excusing any misogyny that has come du's way.

no surprise.

[4th law of robotics]

124. So you think sexism against women has been escalating since the "mad men" era?

[seabeyond]

125. not the point. divert. regardless and i am not measuring, sexism is sexism. saying, well....

it was worse before, so why not, is not only not progressive, it is actually.... wrong.

[4th law of robotics]

126. The person you were responding to said that he hadn't seen it get worse since those days

you criticized him for "not seeing it".

That implies you think it has gotten worse. Or at best has remained the same.

Do you think things have gotten better for women over the years or worse?

Also the premise of the OP is that hatred of women has been escalating.

So how can reference how it was historically compared to today (you know, to determine if it has been escalating or not) be a diversion when that is both the topic of the OP and of the person you responded to?

Diversion/redirect these things don't mean "referencing exactly what the discussing was covering"

[4th law of robotics]

127. Here:

OP:
I think we need to talk about the hatred of women. [View all]

It has escalated in our society to the point where it is becoming truly toxic, and not just among the right-wingers, either.



Poster you responded to: I think it hasn't escalated, but that's just me. Maybe it's because I was alive back in the

Mad Men days, when ass-patting and "tootsie/sweetie/broad" were said without apology, "Women can only be secretaries, teachers, switchboard operators or nurses" was universally accepted, and "Once you get married, get into the kitchen and out of the workforce," was the EXPECTATION and anyone violating that expectation had best have been suddenly widowed or had her husband crippled in some cruel and unanticipated way.

That's not to say everything is rosy--we have a long way to go as a nation with a LOT of prejudices.

---------------------

Both of which deal with the notion that it is worse now than it was in the past (one to assert that and one to refute it).

How then is referencing how it was in the past somehow "not to the point" or a diversion?

[MADem]

130. Thank you for stating that so precisely.

This individual goes out of the way to try to bait/goad me, for some odd reason. I don't get upset at things I see on a message board, generally, but this poster persists nonetheless and seems to want a fight with me--why, I have no idea. This is not the first time I have seen this sort of confrontational post without any valid reason behind it.

I think it is an entirely fair point to note that the trajectory has been towards improvement over the past half century or so, while also noting that there's more ground yet to cover. That's all I said! And the reply I got was just rude, untrue and unfair.

[4th law of robotics]

131. Yeah,

I'm fairly new here so I don't know her (I assume?) all that well. But I have seen what you describe elsewhere.


Completely over the top.

[MADem]

129. Yes -- it WAS the PRECISE POINT that I made. You're the one doing the "divert" nonsense.

Answer the question, why don't you, instead of accusing people who don't deserve it of sexist conduct, as you did me?

The one who isn't being very progressive here isn't me--I don't cart a broad brush from thread to thread, looking for people to splash with vitriolic and untrue assertions.

[LiberalLoner]

133. I was born in 61 so I wasn't really aware of most stuff until about 79 when I had my first real job.

I do remember that time period as having an awful lot of sexual harassment, which got pretty old at times. Today, there seems to be a whole lot less of that. It seems to be less tolerated today. So in that sense, I guess I can see that it has gotten better.

But what I'm seeing/feeling leaves me feeling less safe than ever. What I am perceiving is a resentment, a simmering anger, that I didn't perceive back then during the sexual harassment days.

It's the anger that really scares me. Maybe I'm not perceiving it accurately, or maybe I'm hypersensitive. I do have PTSD from the childhood that I had, so I'm very much hypersensitive towards displays of anger, of an attitude of, "I want to hurt you."

Back in the late 70's, early 80's, I had the feeling of "I want to have sex with you" a lot but never even once that I can remember, "I hate you and I want to hurt you if I could get away with it." Lately I'm feeling like I'm experiencing a whole lot of the latter and it really, really scares me.

[MADem]

135. In the WW2 and on days, when women first started to join the workforce in numbers, it was Open

Season. Overt, outward harassment, that women were expected to perceive as a "compliment" to their attractiveness. If you look at old films from the era, the caricature of a pervy old guy chasing a sweet young thing around the desk was played for laughs, but it happened all too often in the workplace. Go visit a nursing home/senior center sometime, and seek out the ladies over eighty and over ninety--they'll give you an earful.

Today, that kind of conduct seems unimaginable, but it was common--routine, expected. The "good girls" who wanted to find a husband made sure they didn't find themselves in a position where their "marriage prospects" might be compromised, but it required continuous thinking ahead and no small degree of teamwork (it was harder, even back then, to harass two as easily as one--and it made assault, which was also all too common, much more difficult).

Until what--63 or so--there was no Equal Pay Act (even though it still isn't always enforced today, it was blatantly worse back then--women would do the work and men would get the promotions). Up to the late sixties, they had separate (and unequal) want ads in the paper--"women's" jobs were segregated out in the paper. Some people don't realize or believe how restrictive it was, how separated, how many "role paradigms" were enforced.

It's no picnic for a lot of people, still, in this era, but it was ghastly fifty years ago.

I think part--not all but part--of what you are experiencing is a consequence of a challenging job market. Your perception of that "anger" you speak of is absolutely real. It is entirely likely that, in your case, your gender does indeed play into any negativity you're feeling from male counterparts, but if you were a minority male you'd probably get an equal dose of vitriol from those same fellows for being the "wrong" color. If you were a minority faith, you'd probably feel a little heat for that reason.

It's Lord of The Flies out there in the workforce--kiss the Kumbayah goodbye for now. Employers will continue to be diverse in their hiring practices, but they'll be hiring far fewer people until the economy picks up. In some cases, they'll be letting people go, too, and the bosses just may be doing it by the numbers --"We can afford to get rid of a (fill in your choice of EEO category) and still be sufficiently diverse if anyone tries to file a lawsuit--hey, last hired, first fired, and all that!"

Jobs aren't plentiful these days, people are less inclined to be filled with the spirit of Equal Opportunity--especially if it means there are three people in a work center and only two of them won't get fired.

People are also less willing to help each other at work, especially if giving someone a hand will give that person a leg up--can't let "the competition" look too good, it could come back to bite ya, especially if the company is doing a bit of belt-tightening.

When it comes to getting and hanging on to a job, Everyone wants to be sitting in the catbird seat and it's a dog-eat-dog world, to totally mix the metaphors. Gone are the days (in the eighties and nineties) when employers competed to get good workers and offered perks like covered parking, company cars, extra vacations, bonuses, etc. Didn't like your workcenter back then? You could print out a resume and be gone in two weeks to a better place with a few more perks without batting an eye.

Now, people are looking right and left, suspicious of one another, not viewing co-workers as teammates, but as threats, and determined to hang onto their jobs at all costs. You've probably got a few people looking hard at you that way, and you're noticing it, unsurprisingly.

And for those who are newly hired, they pretty much are not surprised if they are expected to get down on their knees and kiss the boss's feet if they'll offer full time work and health insurance.

It's tough out there, and doubly tough for the kids coming out of college and trying to get that entry level position....and it is triply tough for anyone over or approaching fifty, regardless of gender, even though age discrimination is supposed to be out the window. Older people have health problems, employers figure, and they have more expenses and want a bigger paycheck...so if they can hire two twenties with no insurance or retirement benefits part time for the price of one fifty full time with a health plan and a retirement package, they'll do it for the insurance savings alone.

It's a really difficult time for most people trying to be a member of the "middle class work force."

I hope it gets better soon. This just can't continue on forever.

[DURHAM D]

137. Regarding sexual harassment -

a few years ago a friend explained to me sexual harassment is still very much a problem, particularly in the fast food industry. IOWs - it has moved from offices to McDonalds and Burger King. Obviously the victims are more likely to be younger minimum wage earners who really, really need to keep a job and are good "victims" in the sense that they are often desperate, don't know their rights, and a system is not really in place to handle complaints. She also added that the perps are mostly likely to be the person preparing the work schedules.

In these really difficult economic times I would assume the problem has only gotten worse and if anyone complaints they are let go because there are plenty of desperate replacements waiting in line.

[redqueen]

139. Oh it's still rampant in offices, too.

Anyone who thinks that just because Catharine MacKinnon worked so hard to make it illegal that people stopped doing it Is fooling themselves.

As you said, jobs are hard to come by, and we all saw what Anita Hill went through.

[MADem]

128. Well, isn't that a broad-brushed and unfair commentary!

You know nothing about me, yet you persist in offensive accusations--you really should check yourself and not say things without being able to back them up.

And I know you can't back up a thing you've said about me, because your accusations are simply not true.

[LanternWaste]

132. In much the same way as racism, it's still here, still strong, and still a lifestyle for far too man

In much the same way as racism, it's still here, still strong, and still a lifestyle for far too many people, but those people who engage in it, have learned to do so in such a way as to parse words and invoke plausible dependability when necessary.

Say what you want about the old-times-- at least they had the courage of their own convictions-- regardless of how absurd those convictions were; those engaging in it in the here and now as not only absurd in thier convictions, but lack the courage to say outright their reasons for their misplaced hatreds and bigotries.

[MADem]

134. That wasn't "courage" back then--it was an undeserved sense of entitlement.

Nothing courageous about their conduct in the slightest. It was reprehensible.

[TNLib]

136. misogyny is no different than Racism yet it's tolerated and often encouraged.

Unfortunately it's way to often played off as humor. As seen very frequently on DU.

[redqueen]

138. Yeah, sorry about that. Apparently it's all the fault of the mean, nasty feminists

who bore the shit out of and annoy everyone with their attempts to spotlight bigotry, in the hopes that anyone gives a shit.

[ManyShadesOf]

140. it appears to be

the fear that an honest discussion about sexism would be bad for the porn industry